§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
176§ Brigadier LowIt is extremely difficult to follow the provisions of the Third Schedule and make quite certain whether or not one understands them. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. If hon. Members turn to Paragraph (8) of Part I of the Schedule, they will see that the whole of Subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Army Act is to be omitted. Previously in that paragraph, only the words "India or" were omitted. The Section of the Army Act referred to deals with India and Burma. Why is it that the provisions of Subsection (2) which are designed to affect both India and Pakistan should now be cancelled in reference to Burma as well as to India? That is the first point.
The second point really comes up on Paragraph 10 of Part 1 of the Schedule, and concerns Subsection 11 of Section 175 and Subsection (8, a) of Section 176 of the Army Act, which make members of the Indian Forces, while serving with the U.K. Forces, subject to the Army Act. That is done in accordance with usual procedure; it means they are Dominion Forces. Do we take it that the Indians have agreed to that? The last point arises on Paragraph 11, and concerns Subsection (2) of Section 180 of the Army Act, which appears to legislate for the Indian Forces, and is not covered by provisions in the Third Schedule at all. Amongst other things, it states that members of the Indian Forces, wherever they are serving, are subject to Indian military law. How can they be subject to Indian military law and the Army Act at the same time? Those are the points I wish to make. I may have been guilty of misunderstanding the whole matter.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am guilty of misunderstanding the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). I am not sure I shall be able to answer the last question, because I do not think I followed him. With regard to the point he raised on Paragraph 8, it was felt that, having regard to the existing situation in Burma, as well as in India, it would be more convenient to make this question of deduction of pay subject to United Kingdom law. In regard to Paragraph 10, which makes it clear that the British Army Act does not apply to forces raised in India, that is a provision which is inserted in agreement with the authorities in India. I am not 177 sure I am clear as to the last point put by the hon. and gallant Member. The effect of the paragraph as it stands is to repeal the power in British courts-martial to punish civilians for perjury.
§ Brigadier LowI think I was trying to rush my fences at this hour of the night on both points. I was not referring to what was in the paragraph but the next Subsection. These points were brought to my notice by reading the surrounding provisions of the Bill. If I may take the Attorney-General back to Paragraph 10, I was asking him why that provision was still retained in the Army Act and not repealed or omitted. The same applied to Subsection (8, a) of Section 176. I was asking him, not about something which